Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/31871065
CITATIONS READS
2 128
1 author:
Glenn Rikowski
University of Lincoln
86 PUBLICATIONS 521 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Current State of the Horological Industry in the British Isles View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Glenn Rikowski on 26 October 2016.
1
„Critical Pedagogy: Creatively Responding to Government Education
Agendas‟ in April 2008 [6]. This indicates that some acolytes of critical
pedagogy in the UK are thinking about how it can be incorporated into
New Labour‟s education policy initiatives. Though whether this strategy
results in critical pedagogy becoming crushed under the hoof of
government education agendas, or those agendas becoming
radicalised, remains to be seen. Even New Labour‟s own Teaching and
Learning Research Programme (TLRP), sponsored by the UK‟s
Economic & Social Research Council includes a „Critical Pedagogies
Project‟ headed by Deborah Youdell [7].
But what is „critical pedagogy‟? It is not easy to pin down. Ira Shor
(1992) characterised it as:
This definition reads similar to what the radical sociology of the late-
1960s and early 1960s was about. It suggests commitment to social
transformation, but no more than that. On the other hand, it could be
read as advocating a form of “empowering education” that was
agnostic regarding social emancipation – emancipation from capitalist
society on a collective basis. Shor‟s definition also reads rather like a
sophisticated commitment to critical thinking that is based on
individual cognitive emancipation. This form of emancipation is
primarily concerned with uncovering underlying truths behind
sometimes baffling and debilitating appearances and ideological
smokescreens. The aim, it seems, is to get at the “deep meaning” of
phenomena encountered in everyday life, including what goes on in
schools, colleges and universities. Social emancipation, therefore,
appears to be suspended above the quest for cognitive depth.
2
universe [8]. For example, the discussion on how education in
contemporary society systematically undermines the „class interests of
those students who are most politically and economically vulnerable
within society‟ rests on a neo-Weberian conception of class-as-status-
group and implies, by default, that the class interests of these
students can be met in the existing form of society: capitalism.
Furthermore, there is no mention of the abolition of class; the
termination of all classes in society. In these ways, and through key
omissions, critical pedagogy becomes a form of Left liberalism, where
social justice, equality, social worth etc. (in general, and in relation to
education specifically) can be solved or resolved within the existing
framework of capitalist society. The solutions appear to rest on
equalising resources and changing attitudes towards certain groups
(and education has key role here for Left liberalism) within capitalist
society. Educational theorists such as Peter McLaren, Paula Allman and
I believe this outlook to be an alluring, simplistic and an apparently
easy way out of our social predicament. In practice, it locks the
educational Left into chasing rainbows. Critical pedagogy for social
emancipation should be the goal; emancipation from capitalist society
with its value-form of labour and the rule of money.
“… the American left often appears baffled over the question of what constitutes
radical educational theory and practice. Beneath the plethora of pedagogical
approaches, that range from deschooling to alternative schools, one searches in vain
for a comprehensive critical theory of education which bridges the gap between
educational theory on the one hand and social and political theory on the other”
(p.63).
“One also searches in vain for a systematic theoretical approach to a radical analysis
of the day-by-day socio-political texture of classroom structure and interaction, i.e.
3
how specific forms of knowledge and meaning penetrate, develop, and are
transmitted within the context of the classroom experience” (Ibid.).
This deficit has been addressed in many studies since Giroux was
writing in 1981, with the work of Michael Apple, and especially his
work with James Beane (Apple and Beane, 1999) particularly pertinent
here. Yet it could still be argued today that classroom studies, even
radical ones clearly committed to challenging hierarchies, inequalities
and championing the disadvantaged in education, are not strongly
connected to a project of social emancipation. Indeed, it is not clear,
as Richard Hatcher (2007) has indicated how they could so be without
theorising on how critical pedagogy relates to extra-education political
movements and parties and to trade unions and workers‟ and
students‟ struggles, and making the necessary practical links though
political action.
“Amidst the theoretical shambles characteristic of the educational left, two major
positions stand out: these can be loosely represented, on the one hand, by the
content-focussed radical and, on the other, by the strategy-based radicals. These
representations are, of course, ideal-typical and should not be seen as exhibiting
rigid boundaries. … The content-focussed radicals define pedagogy by their
insistence on the use of a Marxist-based perspective to provide a demystifying
analysis for students of the dominant ideology reproduced in varied forms in the
prevailing system of schooling. On the other side, there are the strategy-based
education (sic). This group defines radical pedagogy as the development of „healthy‟
non-alienating classroom social relationships. In this case, specific classroom social
encounters are designed to help students break through the engineered boredom
and oppression characteristic of late capitalist relations of production and its
everyday life” (Ibid.).
4
Hatcher, simply gives what goes in educational institutions too much
significance and prominence in the struggle for socialism. For Hatcher
the problems of „changing the consciousness of teachers‟ and „state
limitation and repression‟, have not been addressed adequately by
critical (or even by revolutionary critical) pedagogues (p.7). Thus, he
asserts:
“My argument is that the strategy that addresses these two issues most effectively
has at its centre the experience of collective action both inside and outside the
classroom – campaigns, struggles, collective forms of resistance and for alternatives.
It is through collective action that the consciousness of the mass of teachers can
change, and the constraints of state repression, mediated by school management,
can be resisted” (Ibid.).
5
seeks forms of organisation that best enable the pursuit of doing critical philosophy
as a way of life” (McLaren and Rikowski, pp.7-8).
Whilst I agree with the arguments of Paula Allman and Peter McLaren
about the „domestication‟ of critical pedagogy, and see the need to
move towards a more radical „revolutionary critical pedagogy‟, I would
want to pinpoint precisely that which makes revolutionary critical
pedagogy truly critical. In this way, I build on their work.
For me, a critical pedagogy should have at its foundations the critique
of capitalist society. However, at the core of this enterprise is a
critique of what Moishe Postone (1996) takes to be the basic
structuring features of capital‟s social universe. These phenomena
constitute the „fundamental core of capitalism‟ (pp.24-29). However,
Postone argues that for Marx, the category of value is key:
“… for Marx, the category of value expresses the basic relations of production of
capitalism, - those social relations that specifically characterize capitalism as a mode
of social life – as well as that production in capitalism is based on value. In other
words, value, in Marx‟s analysis, constitutes the “foundations of bourgeois
production”” (Postone, 1996, p.24).
Furthermore:
“… value does not refer to wealth in general, but is a historically specific and
transitory category that purportedly grasps the foundation of capitalist society”
(p.25).
6
Thus, the critique of capitalist work as the production of value as well
as of use-values (useful things) as commodities is essential, and from
this it follows that critical pedagogy should be concerned with the
analysis and critique of work in society today – and this includes the
work of teachers and all those involved in education and training.
Indeed, later on I shall argue that the labour of teachers has a special
status as an object of critical pedagogy.
“In Marx‟s analysis, social domination in capitalism does not, on its most
fundamental level, consist in the domination of people by other people, but in the
domination of people by abstract social structures that people themselves constitute”
(Postone, 1996, p.30).
“It is the only commodity in the social universe of capital that can create, sustain and
expand capital through surplus-value production. This establishes its supreme
importance in the firmament of commodities. In addition, this magical commodity
resides in the personhoods of labourers, and is ultimately under the jurisdiction of
their wills. Thus: labour power is the supreme value-creating power on which capital
depends for its existence, and it is incorporated within labourers who have the
potential to withhold this wonderful social force (through strikes or leaving the
7
employment of a capital) or worse, to use labour power for anti-capitalist activity
and ultimately for non-capitalist forms of production. Together, these features make
labour power capital‟s weakest link. Capital depends on it, yet has the capacity to be
used by its owners against capital and to open up productive forms which capital no
longer dominates. Marx and Marxist analysis uncovers this with a great force and
clarity as compared with any other critical social theory. In indicating the fragility of
capital in this way, and in pinpointing its weakest link, Marxist analysis is vindicated
and justified” (Rikowski, 2006, p.8).
From what I have said so far, the main priority of critical pedagogy is
to critique the ways in which human labour constitutes capitalist
society (how we become dominated by our own creations) and the
constitution of capitalist society in terms of its basic structuring
features. This will entail a critique of capitalist work and education,
amongst other things. It is also clear that rather than starting out from
Gramsci, Freire or Habermas, that I am advocating a critical pedagogy
based on the works of Marx and Marxism. Furthermore, this
perspective on critical pedagogy situates it as an aspect of anti-
capitalism. Critical pedagogy is a form of anti-capitalist education, and
indeed is the latter‟s „first moment‟ (see Rikowski, 2004, pp.567-568).
8
capitalist social life. But it is also indicated how people struggle against these
divisions and how unity in difference can become a reality (with examples from
contemporary society and history)” (Rikowski, 2004, p.567).
“The key point is that we need to encourage our students to be critical of all aspects
of capitalist society, whilst acknowledging its advances over previous forms of
society such as Feudalism and ancient societies based on slave labour. No aspect
should be sacrosanct” (Ibid.).
Yet there are certain things the critical educator needs to consider: the
age of the students, and their prior learning which relates also to the
sector (primary, secondary, further, higher and adult etc.). The
academic subject is important too. Those teaching economics,
sociology and history would seem to be blessed. Those teaching
education studies in higher education particularly so, as the social
production of labour power can be appropriately addressed there.
All of Hatcher‟s (2007) points about the capitalist state clamping down
on some of the critical spaces necessary for critical pedagogy, whilst
also opening up some avenues or ignoring some aspects of it need to
be kept in view and worked through within our own lives as educators
and workers. His advice about how teachers might gain support from
9
colleagues and trade unions in their endeavours in critical pedagogy is
also worth keeping in view. There are a growing number of examples
of critical pedagogy in the mainstream education literature and in the
radical education literature, but more examples, and analysis of them,
are required, and Hatcher is right to point this out. Finally, Hatcher‟s
view that we need awareness and analysis of actual and potential
resistances to critical pedagogy from our colleagues, managements,
parents and other significant actors is to be heeded.
It has been argued that a truly critical pedagogy has the following
features:
* The third level of critique brings in the rest of capitalist social life –
but relates to the first and second levels as frequently as possible;
This does not preclude bringing in all the insights, teaching strategies
and approaches that can be found in the vast literature on critical
pedagogy. However, if sight of these reference points becomes lost or
very hazy then critical educators need to take stock as their anti-
capitalist status is open to question.
10
Self-criticism is also necessary in relation to how we operate as
academics and teachers: our writings, our research outputs (if in
higher education), our teaching and learning resources, and other
ways in which we use media (e.g. web sites, blogs, social networks
such a MySpace and so, as well as TV and radio appearances). How do
all of these gel with critical pedagogy as anti-capitalism?
Notes:
[1] Many of these developments can be viewed at „Critical Pedagogy on the Web‟:
http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~stevens/critped/page1.htm
[2] See „International Seminar, Paulo Freire (1997-2007) – The Life Wide Learning in
Europe and in the Mediterranean Basin‟ at:
http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/rikowski-point/entries/2007/08/09/paulo-freire--
-international-seminar/1254. This is no longer available, but details of the seminar
can be found at:
http://www.centrostudibruner.it/eventi/seminario_educazione_adulti.pdf
[3] Joyce Canaan at the University of Central England has also contributed
significantly to the development of practice, research and writing on critical
pedagogy during the last few years (see or example Canaan, 2005). Michael Neary
at the University of Warwick (see Neary, 2005; and Neary and Parker, 2004) and Ian
Cook at the University of Birmingham (see Cook, 2000) have also advanced critical
pedagogy in the UK, along with a number of others too many to mention.
[4] The Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research web site, with a quote from
Freire inscribed in its logo is at:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/research/cetl/
[5] This is run by Dr. Margaret Ledwith. She also heads the Centre for Critical
Pedagogy and Social Justice Education at St. Martin‟s College. See details at:
http://www.ucsm.ac.uk/assbs/CPSJ/CPSJCP.htm
11
[6] For details on this, see: http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/rikowski-
point/entries/2007/09/11/critical-pedagogy-creatively-responding-to-government-
education-agendas/1347 No longer available, but can now be found at USC Firgoa:
http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/node/37108
[8] These authors look at critical pedagogy through the following perspectives:
cultural politics; political economy; historicity of knowledge; dialectical theory;
ideology and critique; hegemony; resistance and counter-hegemony; praxis: the
alliance of theory and practice; and dialogue and conscientization. Despite my
reservations regarding that there characterisation of critical pedagogy lacks critical
depth (of which more later), it certainly has critical breadth. I would recommend
their chapter to any newcomer to the literature and practice of critical pedagogy.
[9] Although I have cited approvingly Hatcher‟s work here, there are other aspects of
his analysis with which I disagree. First, his understanding of my own work
constitutes wilful misrepresentation – but he has been doing this for a couple of
years now (see Rikowski, 2005). Second, he offers familiar platitudes regarding how
to link struggles inside and outside education. Does he think folks can‟t work, or
have not worked out this basic stuff for themselves? Third, critical pedagogy in his
eyes has only limited value. Indeed, it could even be seen as a form of fatalism and
utopianism, though he appears very inconsistent on this (see p.5 – where he argues
that „the movement to multiply instances of radical pedagogy is a vital element in
socialist strategy in education‟). Fourth, his analysis tends to focus on schools (where
his arguments are strongest) and to ignore, higher education, adult education and
teacher training (where they are weakest). Fifth, his critique of „revolutionary critical
pedagogy‟ (RCP) (drawing on the work of Paula Allman, Peter McLaren and myself) is
a travesty. According to Hatcher, RCP remains a vision and a programme with no
means to implement it. That is true, but Hatcher has no vision or programme – only
platitudes offered in a patronising and self-righteous manner. All he has is a lot of
familiar stuff about links, campaigns and united fronts, and interesting analyses of
three instances of class struggle in the schools sector, boosted by wishful thinking
regarding their significance. Finally, he misunderstands (via Stewart Hall‟s flawed
characterisation of Marx), Marx‟s notions of „ideological forms‟ and the
superstructure, and writes as if the opening sections of Marx and Engels‟ The
German Ideology had never been written. There are more examples of where
Hatcher‟s superficial reading of Marx and his predilection to misrepresent my own
views, but these will be addressed (along with the issues noted previously)
elsewhere.
[10] Mike was told this whilst on holiday in one of the countries constituting the
former Yugoslavia.
References
12
Allman, P. (2001) Critical Education Against Global Capitalism: Karl Marx and
Revolutionary Critical Education, Westport, Connecticut & London: Bergin & Garvey.
Apple, M. & Beane, J. (1999) Democratic Schools: Lessons from the Chalk Face,
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cook, I. (2000) „Nothing Can Ever Be the Case of “Us” and “Them” Again‟: exploring
the politics of difference through border pedagogy and student journal writing,
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol.24 No.1, pp.13-27.
Dardar, A., Baltodano, M. & Torres, R. (2003) Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction, in:
A. Dardar, M. Baltodano & R. Torres (Eds.) The Critical Pedagogy Reader, New York
& London: Routledge.
Giroux, H. (1981) Ideology, Culture and the Process of Schooling, Lewes: Falmer
Press.
Hatcher, R. (2007) ‘Yes, but how do we get there?’ Alternative visions and the
problem of strategy, a paper presented at the British Education Studies Association
Annual Conference, „Alternative Visions of Education‟, Bath Spa University, July 6 –
7th.
McLaren, P. & Farahmandpur, R. (2005) Teaching Against Global Capitalism and the
New Imperialism: A Critical Pedagogy, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Neary, M. & Parker, A. (2004) Enterprise, Social Enterprise and Critical Pedagogy:
Reinventing the HE Curriculum, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship,
Policy Paper #002.
Rikowski, G. (2004) Marx and the Education of the Future, Policy Futures in
Education, Vol.2 Nos. 3 & 4, pp.565-577, online at:
13
http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/viewpdf.asp?j=pfie&vol=2&issue=3&year=2004&arti
cle=10_Rikowski_PFEO_2_3-4_web&id=195.93.21.71
Rikowski, G. (2006) Education and the Politics of Human Resistance, Information for
Social Change, Issue No.23 (summer):
http://libr.org/isc/issues/ISC23/B3%20Glenn%20Rikowski.pdf
Shor, I. (1992) Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change, Chicago
& London: The University of Chicago Press.
14